But lawyers for the state want the plaintiffs to post a $3.8 billion bond before the case can proceed, according to a motion filed last week in St. Joseph Superior Court.

The lawyers say the bond is required by state law on public lawsuits, defined as suits that challenge the construction, financing or leasing of public improvements.

According to the motion, the law requires the plaintiffs to either show their suit has merit or post a bond equal to the state's financial loss if Major Moves is delayed.

The motion puts the potential loss at $3.8 billion Â? the value of a 75-year lease of the Indiana Toll Road to a Spanish-Australian investment consortium.

"A handful of protesters must not be permitted to derail or delay the execution of any projects authorized by Major Moves," the motion says, "particularly the leasing, funding and construction of the (Toll Road), with a meritless and harassing lawsuit."

Judge Michael P. Scopelitis has scheduled a May 11 hearing on the motion, filed by lawyers for Daniels, state Treasurer Tim Berry, the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Indiana Finance Authority, which owns the Toll Road.

Jacqueline Sells Homan, a South Bend lawyer representing the state defendants as co-counsel, said the hearing could involve witness testimony as well as other evidence and arguments on both sides of the case.

"It's likely that there would be witnesses," she said, "but it could be presented to the court in a number of different ways."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs could not be reached for comment. But one of the plaintiffs said a substantial bond requirement would derail the lawsuit, filed by seven individuals and a consumer-rights group called the Citizens Action Coalition.

"It would be a suit killer," Steve Bonney, of West Lafayette, Ind., said.

But Bonney also said the $3.8 billion bond request Â? about one-third of Indiana's annual budget Â? demonstrates the state's desire to crush the lawsuit without answering its concerns.

"Our attorneys said, from a public relations aspect, we couldn't have asked for a better response," Bonney said. "Because it's just quashing the citizen."